Tag: News

After publishing a memo about his thoughts on diversity on an internal discussion board, James Damore has been fired from Google. He’s been making the rounds online, talking about his memo, diversity, chess, and his thoughts on Google’s actions. The memo, much like everything else these days, has been very divisive. Damore has been labeled a sexist due to the comments made in the memo. Free speech advocates have come to his support, disgusted that a man lost his livelihood over his opinion. So what is James Damore? Is he an anti-diversity bigot or a victim of political correctness? The only way to find out that answer is to go to the controversial memo itself.

I pulled this version of the memo from medium.com. It has a foreword responding to the public reaction to the memo. Mr. Damore sounds reasonable here. He says he’s speaking for more than just himself. Others at Google share the same opinion. Though we will never hear from them after the firing of Mr. Damore. I agree with him here. Diversity in the workplace is a very hot topic. People shouldn’t be afraid to vocalize their opinions as long as they are professional and not inflammatory.

This introduction is intriguing to me. How he will substantiate his claims he’s making? Free and open discussion is a valuable part of the human experience. He mentions differing traits in men and women may contribute to lack of equal representation. A bold claim, but that isn’t advocating for the removal of women in the work force. He sounds okay here.

He hedges his claims on the bottom, by mentioning that he doesn’t know much outside of perspective. And he claims he himself may be biased and is open to discussing his position. He is correct in that social sciences, media, and the tech field skew to the left of political spectrum. I’m not seeing anything worth being fired over.

I don”t know if I agree with his right and left political breakdown. It’s very broad and basic. I have to agree with him that we have a culture that shames people into silence. But that is on both sides of the political spectrum. Colin Kapernick kneeled during the National Anthem and now cannot get a job in the NFL. He’s not the best quarterback, but he’s better than others that currently have jobs. He’s been blackballed for his comments on touchy subjects much like how James Damore has been.

Biological differences do exist between men and woman. This is very well-documented. Sexual dimorphism is observable in the human species. But to look at biological differences and apply them to women in the modern tech field is a huge jump. I don’t know what he could be thinking of here. Is he saying that women are lacking in something to be successful or that they are biologically programmed to dislike working in the tech field? He will have to have strong evidence to support either claim.

And this is where Mr. Damore got himself into trouble. His first citation is a Wikipedia link. Not the most credible of sources. My understanding of the first bullet is that he is claiming women are more social creatures than men and prefer to work with people than isolated in rooms with computers. I don’t find that to be necessarily a fallacious claim, but doesn’t sufficiently explain the lack of women in the tech field. There are women who work in that industry and they’re as social as any other woman. Author needed to dig deeper for an explanation. He needed to speak to female coworkers and ask them why they got into the tech field. This would allow him to understand more of why women enter and better understand why some women may not.

Bullet number two is a similar half-truth. It has been noted that women have difficulty obtaining raises, but you can’t claim that women wanting to be liked is the sole explanation. He’s jumping to conclusions. There can be other reasons for why women don’t get or don’t ask for raises. Could that be true on average? Maybe. There is also no citation for this claim.

The third bullet point is just ignorant. Women work high stress jobs. The majority of nurses are women and that is a very high stress position. He didn’t do enough research or think about the positions that women hold in our society. He’s acting like women just prefer to work as secretaries and not ask for raises because they want to be liked and can’t handle stress. Third bullet puts a sour taste in my mouth.

Mr. Damore jumps again to a conclusion and states that we should stop assuming sexism is solely responsible for the gender gap. I wouldn’t go that far. Sexism is likely a part of the reason for gender gaps. It is not wholly responsible, but it is an element.

I agree that some men take on high-paying positions for status, but others do enjoy their work. Not every CEO is just in it for the status. What’s odd to me about that paragraph is that he both claims that men take on jobs for status, but then lists a bunch of low status jobs that men work. If status drove men, then why would they be garbage collectors? He throws out this work-related death stat, but I don’t feel that is relevant to this discussion.

His top suggestion is the best one he makes in this list. But that doesn’t only pertain to women, that can apply to all people. Finding a way to add more socializing into coding can make it a more appealing field to work in. But this does not explain why women would not want to be leaders in the technology if they are already within it. Those women are interested in coding. This would be more for women outside of the technology field.

I don’t see how point two is relevant to his claims. A woman who is good enough to get a job at Google has a spirit of competition within her. Those jobs are not handed out. If they’ve made it that far, they should want more once they are in the company. What needs to be focused on is how many women desire to be leaders and why they do. What is preventing them from becoming leaders? If they aren’t any, let’s ask women why they don’t want to be leaders. We can’t assume that they have less of a drive for competition. His link about education is not relevant to this discussion.

Suggesting that women cannot handle leadership positions due to stress is where he got into trouble and what drove Google to fire him. It’s a sexist assumption that women shy away from positions because they fear the stress. It’s what did him in.

Work-life balance is a good topic to bring up, but his suggestion is for women to work part time. How is this a reasonable solution? How will they pay their bills? Why is he assuming it’s simply too much for women to handle a full-time technology job?

Now his last point here invalidates the entire paper. The crux of his argument is that biological traits are responsible for women not succeeding in the tech field. These traits are innate and universal across cultures. It’s a nature over nurture argument. Now he’s saying men need to be allowed to take on more feminine traits by society. That’s a nurture over nature argument. If men’s traits and desires can be changed through societal influence, why can’t the same be true for women?

Did Google state that they were going to try and hold back others who worked extra hours or took on more stress? He’s afraid that will happen and have disastrous consequences. What has led him to this fear? As far as I can tell, Google is doing great work as a company? What disastrous consequences is he talking about? What evidence does he have that something terrible is going to happen?

The first bullet-point I agree with. Mentors and classes should be open to anyone who needs help regardless of gender or race. If people are excluded because of their race even if they are white, that is wrong. Help should be available to everyone who can benefit from it.

What special treatment for “diversity” candidates is he speaking of? I clicked the link for his lowering the bar comment, but it leads to a private forum. Had there a controversial hiring of a “diversity” candidate? He creates an us vs. them mentality with his use of quotation marks. How does he know that these “diversity” hires aren’t just good enough to work at Google? Is every non-white man hire a diversity hire? He’s not accepting for what they can do. If he has a personal experience of working with someone hired to meet a diversity quota who could not do the work, then he should provide that as evidence.

He hasn’t had much evidence of his own. This memo has been the kettle calling the pot black. He calls social constructionism a myth but earlier he had mentioned that society needs to allow men to be more feminine. Did I misread that? I agree that the gender wage gap is a myth. In this paragraph I sense frustration. Like some “diversity” candidate got hired through a program and he felt that they hadn’t worked hard to get that job. And he’s afraid it’s going to mess up Google.

These are his concluding thoughts. People are biased towards women due to a biological need to protect them. Men are disposable and cannot voice gripes about their gender issues without being shamed. Society believes differences between genders is due to men oppressing women, but the grass isn’t always greener on the other side. However society ignores the pains of men and spends its resources on helping women.

Is he wrong here? I share some of the same sentiment. Very difficult for men to discuss gender issues without being negatively labeled. I don’t know if that comes from biological bias towards women. From what I’ve seen, it’s because one side believes their opinions are morally correct and to oppose them is to be evil. They have very black and white thinking on issues where it may be more complicated. A good example of this would be Donald Trump voters. It is easy to label all Trump voters as evil racists, but that is not the case for all of them. Some people voted for Obama and then switched over to Trump. That was why he won the election. So within his voter-base were people who were not evil racists.

Men as the disposable gender is a subject that intrigues me, but I don’t feel it has much place in a memo stating that biological differences between men and women are responsible for a lack of women in the tech field. We aren’t discussing war. People are sitting around in a room punching code. What does it matter if men are disposable in this context?

If what he says is true and society does favor women, why doesn’t society give them more positions in the lucrative tech field then?

It’s kind of sad that he writes about people afraid of being fired for their comments and that men are labeled misogynists for discussing gender issues because that’s exactly what happened to him.

Google does not sound like a fun place to work if this gentlemen thinks it is a psychologically unsafe environment. It is very concerning that he believes this. What have they done to make him feel unsafe at work?

He wants people to be treated as individuals but has said we should create programs for women because on average they are more agreeable, more anxious and less driven for status. That’s not treating people as individuals.

Diversity in the work place will remain a moral issue so long as people are discriminated against because of who they are and how they were born. That will not go away.

I agree that conservatives who are reasonable and professional should not be alienated.

Programs that exclude others based on their race shouldn’t exist in the workplace. They should be open to everyone.

“Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as
misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the
homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.”

I wouldn’t equate trying to get girls jobs as the same as believing women should be violently murdered and sent to prison at the same numbers of men. People just want women to be well-off and to have a chance to make a good living like any of the men in the field. Very strange comparison.

Criticism of the diversity programs should be permitted. Google ought to have an anonymous suggestion box where people can leave comments without risk of repercussions. This can help to improve their programs and allow employees to feel psychologically safe.

Open discussion is very important to Mr. Damore. Google should have a forum for this. He makes Google sound like a terrifying place to work where the wrong opinion can get you thrown out the door. When you speak up, you are shamed into silence.

But why would we deemphasize empathy? We need that to understand how to better get women into the field? We should rely solely on numbers in that case. We have to get straight to the people. Numbers only tell a part of the story. The methodology behind the numbers have to be examined. When analyzing human behavior, we should pay attention to the individual’s emotions.

The science of human nature isn’t an exact science. I’ve read many psychology books and many of them state that there are failings in their findings and more research needs to be done. You can’t apply the findings to the general population. I just finished a psychology book called The Dark Side of Close Relationships. In one of the last sections in the book, they come to the conclusion that social rejection may do more harm to a person’s well-being than social acceptance does good. But the study accepts that there are limitations to the collection of the data and the responses of the subjects involved in the research. So while the information suggests one thing, it’s possible it may be another.

I do not believe Mr. Damore deserved to be fired for this memo. He has a passion for the subject and speaks for others who are afraid to speak themselves. He is ignorant on some fronts and draws conclusions without substantial evidence. I believe Google could have worked out a solution. If many employees feel that the work environment is psychologically unsafe, that cannot be conducive to being productive. Google takes diversity very seriously so they should have allowed Mr. Damore, female coworkers and leaders to have a discussion on his views. It would be an open forum where they could each learn more about each other’s perspectives. Allow the women to respond to his memo and set him straight on where they believe he is wrong. Let employees give feedback on how they feel about diversity and how they feel about Google’s current practices.

Mr. Damore’s points on work-related deaths and society favoring women over men would best be left to another paper discussing the position of men in contemporary society. I do not read any maliciousness behind his words, but I do sense frustration. I understand why Google fired him. His memo brought a negative light onto the company but I wish they hadn’t. By firing him, they could be contributing to a psychologically unsafe work environment that Mr. Damore describes. They should have found a way to work with him and see where they could make changes.

The Wire is arguably the greatest television show of all time. I haven’t seen enough classic television shows to give a definitive answer on that. The Wire never talked down to its audience and expected them to pay attention. Its messages were subtle. So subtle that at times the show’s messages could sail over the heads of its small, but dedicated audience.

How the audience perceives the message of scene is an important thing for a writer or director to consider when constructing a scene. The scene below is meant to show that Tommy Carcetti is no better than any other politician. He gives a long speech on how the city needs to be harder on the drugs-trafficking taking over the city. Carcetti’s words are passionate but lacking in substance. He offers no real solutions to the struggle of the people in Baltimore.

On the commentary for this episode, David Simon says that the performance of Aidan Gillen and the push-in of the camera imply truth to the audience. Aidan is so genuine in the fire behind his words that people don’t play attention to what he’s saying. Simon states that the push-in was done to show that this is Carcetti’s moment. This is where he becomes mayoral in the eyes of the people. He inspires people with the same words that have failed them in the past.

Simon commented that this showed that politics was more about the visuals rather than the words being spoken. Success in politics is about coming across as fitting for the position through your poise and articulation in debates. The content of your speech is secondary.

Seven years ago a Walmart employee was sent to the front doors of the store to help take control of a crowd of Black Friday shoppers. He was known as a gentle giant to his loved ones. That size was what put him in harm’s way. The store needed big strong men like him to keep the frenzied crowd in check. The front doors would be smashed off their hinges before anyone knew what to do. The human chain set up to stop the rush failed. His co-workers jumped on top of vending machines to escape the hundreds of people flooding into the store. Some were injured including a pregnant woman. A few fought for their lives and managed to get to safety. But this oneemployee did not have their luck. His life came to an end underneath the soles of a crowd of people who felt that fifty percent off electronics was worth more than a human life. He was 34 years old.

Paramedics who came on to the scene to try and help were stepped-on. The shoppers were told to leave the store after the employee’s death was discovered. They refused. They had waited on line for hours. Why did they have to leave because one person had died? They continued to shop as if nothing had happened.

Walmart paid the employee’s family $400,000 to compensate for the loss of life.

In the seven years since the employee’s unfortunate passing, the pain hasn’t subsided for his family. They remember that fateful Black Friday. Every year they stay at home to honor the memory of their fallen giant. They will forever know what people are willing to disregard for the sake of a good sale.

According to a new study released by some educational institution, ants are the most underrepresented group in all forms of media.

Ants account for the same amount of biomass on the planet as humans do, but they make up less than 1 percent of all biomass seen on film. Cars Tomuk, ant expert and the lead researcher for the survey, was disturbed by the findings.

“Even in the few films that ants are in, they are the butt of a joke. Most ants in films and television shows are killed by terminators for laughs. This is very problematic. Ants deserve to be treated with respect like any other species.” said Mr. Tomuk.

Of the 350 films included in the study, only one featured ants in a prominent role. But according to Mr. Tomuk, Marvel’s Ant-Man also has many problems.

“Marvel had a chance to go out and get an ant for the lead role but instead they went with the safe choice, Paul Rudd. Paul Rudd is not an ant. He does not know what it is like to be a pupae or how to live in an ant colony serving your queen every day. The daily life of an ant can be demanding. Does Rudd know anything about that? No. We need more films about the genuine ant experience. ”

The findings of this survey came as no surprise to the ant community. We reached out to a prominent worker ant of an molehill in Antrim, New Hampshire for comment.

“It’s about time America woke up! It’s 2015! There are trillions of ants living in this country and they should be able to watch television shows about their lives and their experiences. ” said Colony Ant of Molehill MSXVMXXX.

“Millions of ants live in the white house right now! They live right under it! But no ant has ever been elected president! This is supposed to be the land of the free! But the only freedom ants have is the freedom to be stepped on by the boot of oppression. Billions of ants will be crushed this year. But does any one care? Will the government do anything to stop it? The senseless slaughter of ants is encouraged by current regime. And it will not stop until ants stop fighting over sugar cubes and start working together for a better future for ants everywhere. ”

Progress may be coming for ants in Hollywood. Film studios have responded positively to the survey. Disney and Sony are the ones taking major steps towards species diversity. Sony has announced an all ants version of Ghostbusters coming to theaters and garbage cans this summer. Disney is re-releasing A Bug’s Life on Blu-Ray with a special documentary on how the film changed bug cinema forever.

Was linked to a great article today on face-ism or rather prejudice based on how your face looks. Good looks are not only a step up when it comes to sex appeal, but also when it comes to earning money, getting jobs, and being promoted. And according to the article, you are even more likely to get out of a crime.

“In the past, this “face-ism” (as Olivola and his colleagues call it) was considered an unfortunate fact of life. But the more they come to understand its pervasive influence, the more they are beginning to wonder if it should be treated like any other prejudice. If so, it could be time to take action.”

Will people take action to help bad-looking people get a fair shake?

We say the color of a person’s skin is not what they should be judged by.

Is not the next logical step to extend this to other attributes that a person cannot control such as the shape of their cheek bones and the distance between their eyes?

Or will the ugly be forced to mutilate their faces with plastic surgery to become like everyone else?

Celebrity worship is one of the easiest things a person can aptly criticize society for. You’ll never be wrong if you point it. There are always more important topics that deserve our attention than the latest outing of Miley Cyrus or the condition of Renee Zellwegger’s face. But still these sort of people get 24/7 coverage and are mauled as they leave restaurants. The demand is there. We want to know more. Who is Justin Bieber dating? Is Jennifer Lawrence really that goofy or is it all an act? Why can’t Amanda Bynes get her life together?

What is it about these people that makes us so curious?

They look good. They won the genetic lottery. Their faces are more symmetrical than the average person. They’re more charismatic. They are beautiful!

We love them for it. We shovel money at them. We love to give them money. Beautiful people can get rich just by looking good and walking down the street. We give them love. People send hundreds of love letters to celebrities. Some take it a bit too far. They get so enamored by their facial features that they have to follow them home and find out every little thing about them. People would buy the water that they bathe in.

And people want to emulate them. They want to look like them. They dress like them. And act like them. They’re trend-setters. Miley Cyrus and her stupid fucking video created the twerk. People still twerk to this day. Because she’s one of the beautiful people.

But what is the real value of beauty?

It doesn’t make you a better worker. It won’t make you a better father or mother. It won’t increase your intelligence. It doesn’t give you better reason. There is nothing virtuous about being beautiful.

Only in the world of love and lust does beauty reign supreme in value.

This woman was kissed by the late Heath Ledger. He was a man like so many others. But his beauty sent this woman into shock with just the touch of his lips to hers. What a crazy power beauty has.

It makes your heart pump in your chest. You might stutter and slur your words when you encounter it. You can just be left in awe of it. It makes men destroy marriages just so they can have a taste of it. It makes smart women endure pain that no one should just so it can be theirs. It makes fools of us all.

We treat beautiful people differently. The rules do not apply to them. Celebrities get slaps on the wrist for their crimes. People trip over themselves trying to make beauty theirs and lock it down. Beautiful people are given better paying jobs. More people want them to be around.

But no one thinks any thing of it. For beauty is not to be criticized. Its treatment is not be rationalized. It is divine. We all just sit tight and worship it, hoping that it rubs off on us.

It’s stupid to make predictions now for the upcoming football season. There are five months until the season starts. Who knows what could happen between then and now? Russell Wilson could OD on heroin. Marshawn Lynch could . Bruce Irvin could actually get a DUI. Pete Caroll might invent a time machine and correct his mistake. Certainly no football expert would waste their time trying.

Luckily I’m no football expert. So here’s my predictions.

Seattle Seahawks 2015-2016

Home (8-0)

The Seahawks should go undefeated at home next year. The past two years they dropped one game. I’ll stick with 8-0 even though they did drop one home game the past two years.

Vs. Cardinals
The Cardinals are a good team.I felt so bad for their fans. At one point, they were 9-1. And then everything fell apart so quickly. They made it into the playoffs running on fumes. They won’t be in that condition once the season starts, but I see Seattle beating them here. Of all the teams that could beat Seattle at home, I think they have best shot.

Vs. Rams
This will be a hard game. The Rams are the team that scare me the most when the Seahawks play them. They are a tricky team with a tricky coach. And they’re getting better. If they can get their offense going, they’ll become the biggest threat to the Hawks in west.

Vs. Browns
This is going to be the close game that’s expected to be a blow out going on. Seahawks will eek out a win here. I have no basis for it being close. I just have this gut feeling.

Vs. Steelers
I’m looking really forward to this game. The Seahawks haven’t played the Steelers in the Russell Wilson era. Ben Roethlisberger has never been in Centurylink. And the people of Seattle haven’t forgotten Superbowl 40. The ghost of Matt Hassellbeck will watch over this game with intent.

vs. Panthers
This game will be okay and the Seahawks will win.

Vs. Bears
I have no opinion on the Bears. There’s 32 teams. I can’t keep up with them. I have no opinions on the Titans, Bears, Bengals, and The bears have a great mascot, but the team seems to be struggling. I don’t think they turn it around next year. I hope they do. Bears are awesome and they shouldn’t be represented by a mediocre team.

vs. 49ers
The Niners are in rough shape. Lost their coach. Half their team has retired. Perhaps the quest for six will be a lot longer than their fans expected.

In 2014, the Seahawks owned the Niners. The Hawks ended their Superbowl aspirations with the tip in that NFCC game. They ate turkey on their logo after a blowout in their own stadium.

Kaep is not good in Centurylink. Sherman has him downloaded. I read some rumors that he’s trying to become a better pocket passer. I don’t see him getting there in Seattle. This will be a win for Seattle. The only way they lose is if Tharold Simon screws up.

Vs. Detroit
The Seahawks should never have let Golden Tate go. It is my feeling that he would be the solution to a lot of their problems on offense. But that’s just me. This will be his revenge game. He ain’t winning though. I wish he could come back.

Away (5-3)

The Seahawks are an excellent team at home. They’re good on the road, but they drop a few game here and there. I expect next year to be no different.

At Packers
The Packers are going to be out for blood in this game, but I don’t think it will be enough. The Seahawks match up really well against the Packers. If Russell Wilson had an average day that NFCC game could have been a blow out. The defense was on fire that game. They played out of their minds to keep it close. Aaron Rodgers will be back to his regular self. This will be a great game.

At Ravens (L)
The Seahawks have to lose on the road. And this is an acceptable loss. It’s a playoff team. Russell Wilson will have one of his funky games.

At Cowboys (L)
The Cowboys are a little worse now. The Seahawks lost to them in Seattle, but that was when Percy Harvin’s bitch ass was still on the team. Still it’s a road game. I expect this to be a loss.

At 49ers
I predict the Hawks to sweep them again.

At Bengals
The Bengals are pretenders.

At Vikings
This game I’m not confident on. I need to read up more on the Vikings. I say this is a soft W. I know they have a young QB who’s not bad.

At Cardinals
I don’t feel too hot about this prediction either. Sweeping the Cards last year only happened because of Ryan Lindley and their defense giving up. I’ll keep the W here, but this is one I would not be surprised to see being an L.

At Rams (L)
The trickery of the Rams beat Seattle last year. Their coach said he had two tricks left to use on Seattle in their Week 17 game. He didn’t get to use them. He’s going to pull them out here in St. Louis where trickery runs wild.

So I’m predicting a 13-3 season. That’s high expectations for this team. They were 7-9 only four years ago. They could drop down there again. A few balls swing the other way last year and they don’t make it to the Superbowl.

The offense should be better next season. Russell Wilson will be another year wiser. Marshawn can continue to do Marshawn Lynch things. Christine Michael might come into his own. If Jimmy Graham is not a bust, that’d be swell for the team too. I can’t tell if struggling early on in games is a part of the design of the Seahawks offense. More blow-outs would be nice to see.

The defense should be around the same. Tharold Simon, who was my least favorite Seahawk last year, will get his shit together. I lost faith in him, but I’m giving him a second chance. That was his rookie year. The only thing about the defense is that if Bobby Wagner or Earl Thomas goes down, the dark times are coming to Seattle.

I hope Mebane is back in time for Week 1. I missed his belly dances throughout the post season.

I’ll double back on this post right before preseason and before week one. Then depending on the Seahawks playoff situation, I’ll review my preview in December.

That is if I haven’t contracted a terminal disease or been in an unfortunate fatal motor-vehicle accident. Those things could delay my review.
—